John Mellencamp's open letter to Bush

[Tabby]

I never knew he was that kind of activist! Intesting points, Johnny Cougar It is good to see an activist caring more about the American service people and their families than the foreigners for once.

 

[Bono's shades]

I thought JM's letter was intelligent and well-written. And his music definitely does NOT suck, although that's probably a matter better discussed in Just the Bang and the Clatter. I totally disagree with his opinion on U2, but otherwise I have a great deal of respect for the man.

 

[Dreadsox]

How is that really important Dread?

I was referring to the Whitewater rant.

There is no way any charges are going to be be brought against this President for anything with a republican controlled House and a republican controlled senate. It will come down to someone in the CIA losing thier job before anyone in here can jump up and down gleefully at the demise of this President. That indeed was my point.

[Q]Unless it is of more importance for one to have a party to blame or a particular politician. That's buck passing. [/Q]

No, Iam not passing the buck, but I find it histerically amusing how I can come into this forum and see this administration SLAMMED for LEGAL actions. Actions that were authorized by a vote of their representatives. The President could not have taken any action if the House of Representatives and the United States Senate gave the President the Authority to wage war.

It is an EXTREMELY valid point. The BUCK still rests with the people who gave him the power to wage war. If they did not do their job and look at the evidence more closely in the Fall of2002 then we should not be so hypocrytical as Americans and hold them responsible as well too.



As to Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, I do not like em, never did, and there are scant places on this board where you can find me defending them.

 

[verte76]

I agree, Dread, I have some big time questions for the pols who voted to authorize the war and are slamming Bush for it *now*. Why'd they vote for the authorization? They didn't have to. This pissed me off because I was protesting the damn thing when they voted for it.

 

[Angela Harlem]

In terms of finding fault with Bush and his administration, yes you are right Dread. I know I've tried not to do that and I dont think you have exactly done that either lol.

Anyways...til January....

 

[U2Kitten]

What did he say about U2??

 

[diamond]

Maybe you should ask Bono or the Edge about that namething,..

Rono-
Last time I checked, Bono has never changed his name from-
Paul David Hewson
to
P. David Hewson
or to
Paul Hewson, in an attempt to sell records.
The same w/Edge.

The bigger question is why you are attempting to defend a grade B American Pop Star that makes crap music.


DB9

 

[sue4u2]

Based on the so called information/documents the White House won't give up, there was evidence to go to the house and senate and pass the vote's to go to war. Since the President was duped and therefore duped his cabinet. Then everyone else was duped into believing what the President said or be considered unpatriotic
by John Ashcroft and company. It seems to be a case of not having another opinion to go on. WMD's or whatever, one had to go with the general consensus that there was something going on in Iraq that was a major treat to the US. With the exception of course of a hell of a lot of people asking and questioning exactly what proof of anything was justification for going to war. They still have to answer these quesitons. IMHO

 

[Ft. Worth Frog]

You know, Bush is not the first to bring up the WMD item. President Clinton while in office also believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. (BTW, what do they look like? Big massive bombs with labels that say WMD?! Doubt it.) I mean, President Clinton and many Democrats wanted to do the same thing as Bush has done, they just did not have the political capital or excuse to do it. Now, it is not so much that they disagree with the war, but that it is now politically expedient for them to bring opposition to the war.

 

[Scarletwine]

"Now, it is not so much that they disagree with the war, but that it is now politically expedient for them to bring opposition to the war."

I totally disagree. The facts coming out of Iraq are a lot different than the ones we were given going in. Also the lack of planning on the part of DOD for post active conflict not only suck but are/were non-existent. While certainly there is an element of political advantage to question the admin. it's coming from not only politicos but the general public.

 

[BVS]

Now, it is not so much that they disagree with the war, but that it is now politically expedient for them to bring opposition to the war.

You honestly think someone would just flippantly change their view on something as detrimental and serious as war because now it's the other side proposing it. That's ridiculous. The U.S. would never have ever participated in any wars if that was the case.
You think Democrats wanted this same exact thing? They didn't have the excuse, where do you think the intelligence came from, do you know where it dates back to? I think you're reaching here. I'd really like to see what information you're basing your opinion on.

 

[STING2]

The Justification for the war is very simple.

Saddam signed a ceacefire agreement at the end of the 1991 Gulf War in which he agreed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD or face renewed military action to achieve verifiable disarmament.

Despite 12 years and hundreds of opportunities to verifiably disarm 100%, Saddam did not. Saddam was given one last chance by Bush to Verifiably Disarm and did not.

Saddam never complied with any of the 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations. Resolutions 678, 687, and 1443 authorized the use of military force to bring about compliance if Iraq was in violation of its obligations.

The only one required to "prove" anything was Saddam. Saddam was required to prove he no longer had WMD through verifiable disarmament. Saddam failed to do this requiring disarmament through military force.

 

[Ft. Worth Frog]

Ok, here are some things that back me up.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/

http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/4136328.htm

These are just a couple of links that show what some prominent Dems have said in the past. Of course, Clinton's view of force meant lobbing a few cruise missiles. However, it is clear that voices have been pretty bipartisan when it comes to Iraq as a threat. It is not like Bush just thought one day "Hey, what about Iraq." Note the sources are reputable news sources, not from some random blog. All I am saying is, we can't just suffer from some political amnesia here and forget that Bush built his case on information that has been pretty widely accepted.

 

[BVS]

Ok, here are some things that back me up.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/

http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/4136328.htm

These are just a couple of links that show what some prominent Dems have said in the past. Of course, Clinton's view of force meant lobbing a few cruise missiles. However, it is clear that voices have been pretty bipartisan when it comes to Iraq as a threat. It is not like Bush just thought one day "Hey, what about Iraq." Note the sources are reputable news sources, not from some random blog. All I am saying is, we can't just suffer from some political amnesia here and forget that Bush built his case on information that has been pretty widely accepted.

I DID NOT DENY THAT CLINTON WAS LOOKING INTO IRAQ. But you said Democrats wanted to do the "same thing Bush has done", and I don't believe they wanted a poorly planned unilateral war. There's a lot of gray that you, by assuming, ignored when making that statement.

 

[STING2]

BonoVoxSupastar,

The Majority of Democrats in the US Senate voted to support Bush's policy on Iraq. Unilateral means only one. At no point in this conflict has the USA been the only country involved in the war, so we should stop using "unilateral" as a way of describing US action because it is incorrect. The USA, United Kingdom and Australia all used military forces in operation Iraqi Freedom and now nearly 30 countries have military forces on the ground in Iraq.

 

[BVS]

BonoVoxSupastar,

The Majority of Democrats in the US Senate voted to support Bush's policy on Iraq. Unilateral means only one. At no point in this conflict has the USA been the only country involved in the war, so we should stop using "unilateral" as a way of describing US action because it is incorrect. The USA, United Kingdom and Australia all used military forces in operation Iraqi Freedom and now nearly 30 countries have military forces on the ground in Iraq.

Yes I know Democrats in the Senate voted.

Ok let's say comparatively... just meaning he didn't have great international support in time of attacks.